Attorneys Frank Pitre, who is representing the plaintiffs in the San Bruno lawsuit against PG&E speak to the media outside the Redwood County Courthouse, Thursday September 22, 2011, in Redwood City, Calif. The judge in the case has set a trial date in July of next year.

Photo: Lacy Atkins, The Chronicle

Attorneys Frank Pitre, who is representing the plaintiffs in the...

Image 2 of 4

Attorney Frank Pitre, who is representing the plaintiffs in the San Bruno lawsuit against PG&E speak to the media outside the Redwood County Courthouse, Thursday September 22, 2011, in Redwood City, Calif. The judge in the case has set a trial date in July of next year.

Photo: Lacy Atkins, The Chronicle

Attorney Frank Pitre, who is representing the plaintiffs in the...

Image 3 of 4

Attorney Frank Pitre, who is representing the plaintiffs in the San Bruno lawsuit against PG&E speak to the media outside the Redwood County Courthouse, Thursday September 22, 2011, in Redwood City, Calif. The judge in the case has set a trial date in July of next year.

Photo: Lacy Atkins, The Chronicle

Attorney Frank Pitre, who is representing the plaintiffs in the...

Image 4 of 4

Attorneys Frank Pitre and Steve Campora, who are representing the plaintiffs in the San Bruno lawsuit against PG&E speak to the media outside the Redwood County Courthouse, Thursday September 22, 2011, in Redwood City, Calif. The judge in the case has set a trial date in July of next year.

A San Mateo County judge ruled Thursday that a group of lawsuits against Pacific Gas and Electric Co. over the San Bruno natural gas explosion will go to trial next year and serve as a model for resolving dozens of others filed by plaintiffs who were injured or lost homes, possessions or loved ones.

Judge Steven Dylina of San Mateo County Superior Court ruled that suits lodged by a total of 16 plaintiffs will be heard in a single trial in July. The outcome of that "representative sampling" will be a blueprint for about 90 other lawsuits filed by victims or victims' relatives over the Sept. 9, 2010, pipeline explosion that killed eight people in the Crestmoor neighborhood, destroyed 38 homes and damaged 70 more.

PG&E's lawyers wanted all the lawsuits heard at once, which the judge said would be "profoundly against the law" and could result in delays of up to a year or more. He said case law dictates that a single jury hear all aspects of a legal matter, but that PG&E wanted separate juries to consider liability and then compensatory damages.

Granting a mass trial, Dylina said, would be "in effect, a Star Trek ruling - to go where no court has gone before."

'Fundamental fairness'

Instead, Dylina set a trial date of July 2 and ruled that the jury will consider lawsuits from two victims - one selected by each side - from each of eight classes of severity, ranging from wrongful death to the trauma associated with witnessing the blast.

He said such a ruling offers "fundamental fairness" to both sides.

Outside court, lead plaintiffs' attorney Frank Pitre said the ruling would mean an early "day of reckoning" for PG&E.

"A day of reckoning will come, and that day of reckoning is July 2, 2012," Pitre said, adding that a trial would mark the "beginning of closure to a group of people who for over a year have waited for a day in court."

"It's a record to have a case with this many claims to be disposed of by the second anniversary - that's like a rocket ship," he said.

Unresolved issues

In court, PG&E lawyers questioned whether the July trial date was realistic, given the complexity of the case and the unresolved question of whether the court will permit plaintiffs to seek punitive damages.

PG&E argued that a mass trial would give all plaintiffs a chance to have a day in court. The company's attorneys left after the hearing without commenting.

However, PG&E spokeswoman Brittany Chord later said, "The people involved in this trial deserve a prompt and fair resolution, and we share the common goal of resolving these matters as quickly and fairly as possible."

Blaming victims?

After Dylina ruled on the trial issues, a legal skirmish broke out over language in a PG&E court filing that Pitre and other lawyers for plaintiffs say amounts to pointing the finger at victims.

The wording preserves PG&E's right to seek to invoke a comparative negligence standard, which allows a jury to temper damages according to any harm that plaintiffs may have brought on themselves.

Gayle Gough, one of PG&E's lawyers, noted that the company refiled its arguments in July, on the day The Chronicle reported on the company's original filing. The new filing, she said, stresses that PG&E "does not blame the plaintiffs and residents who have been affected by this terrible accident."

She suggested, however, that unidentified parties other than the residents may have added to the damage from the blast.

Pitre scoffed at her assertion, noted that the original language remained in the refiled document and challenged Gough in court to strike it. Gough would not commit to doing so, and the judge suggested that PG&E take time to decide what it wanted to do.

"The lawyers for PG&E were having a hard time just admitting and stating unequivocally that those statements had been withdrawn," Pitre said afterward. "They never answered the question."

Complete coverage: To read "Report to America on Pipeline Safety," or to see Chronicle reports since the San Bruno pipeline blast, video of the disaster, and company and government documents about PG&E's actions, go to www.sfgate.com/san-bruno-fire.